Below is a **rewritten draft** of **Chapter 1: “Time as the Final Metaphysical Artifact”** that integrates the **stylistic, conceptual, and scholarly enhancements** suggested in the critique. It aims to **retain the original intent** while clarifying key points, grounding claims in established literature, and reframing time as **an operational measure of change** rather than an ontological backdrop. --- # 1. Time as the Final Metaphysical Artifact Despite the revolutions of twentieth-century physics, a subtle **metaphysical residue** persists in our understanding of the universe: the assumption that **time is a real, flowing dimension**. This assumption lingers even after Einstein abolished Newtonian absolutes, and it profoundly influences cosmology, where time $t$ remains a universal parameter. Although relativity teaches us that clocks are inherently local and simultaneity is observer-dependent, cosmological models continue to posit a **global time variable**, effectively treating the universe as though all processes march in step on a shared timeline. This chapter contends that **time** should no longer be treated as a fundamental entity but recognized as a **convention of measurement**, derived from the local rates of physical change. By **replacing** universal $t$ with a more flexible, **local measure** of change $\chi$, we recover consistency with relativity’s locality and remove conceptual roadblocks like the Hubble tension and dark energy. Time, in this reformulated view, is neither an external flow nor a universal clock but a **numerical tool** that tracks how one system’s transformations compare to another’s. --- ## 1.1 The Legacy of “Flowing Time” in Contemporary Physics Early in modern science, **Newton** (1687) declared that time “flows equably without relation to anything external,” elevating time to an absolute, ever-advancing axis. This **Newtonian notion** of “time as a universal stage” endured even as relativity overturned absolute simultaneity. In **special relativity**, Minkowski’s unification of space and time was initially liberating—space and time became coordinates of a single, four-dimensional continuum. Yet ironically, this “spacetime” formalism still reinserted time as a dimension analogous to space. Philosophically, it edged toward a “block universe” interpretation, where **all events—past, present, future—coexist** in a static 4D manifold (Minkowski 1908; Barbour 1999). **General relativity** (Einstein 1916) advanced further, showing that gravity is not a force in time but the curvature of spacetime itself. Even so, the **Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker** (FLRW) cosmological models adopt a cosmic time $t$ that is treated as universal for the entire universe—a habit at odds with relativity’s principle that time is observer-dependent. This tension is seldom noticed in mainstream cosmology, but it surfaces in paradoxes like **the Hubble tension**, where different measurement techniques yield inconsistent values of $H_0$. Explanations typically invoke exotic new physics (e.g., “dark energy” or “early dark sector” variants), rather than re-examining the metaphysical assumption of a universal time. In short, while **physics** officially denies absolute time, **cosmology** often **reinstates** it, cloaked as a synchronous cosmic coordinate. --- ## 1.2 When Language Shapes Ontology Part of this confusion arises from **linguistic constructs** that suggest “time flows.” Everyday language—“the passage of time,” “time moves forward”—maps easily onto mathematical frameworks where $t$ is an axis. Yet **Husserl** (1905) and **Bergson** (1910) long ago warned that our psychological sense of “temporal flow” is **not** an objective feature of the world but a cognitive synthesis of memory (retention) and anticipation (protention). Consequently, we risk **reifying** time’s flow in our theories simply because we talk about it so naturally. As the philosopher **Wittgenstein** (1953) observed, philosophical quandaries often emerge from “the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Modern cosmology, fixated on the phrase “universe evolves in time,” exemplifies this bewitchment. Physics must distinguish the **operational role** of time (how we measure processes) from the **ontological claim** that time is an actual dimension that “flows.” --- ## 1.3 The Changist Reorientation: Time as a Measure of Change **Changism** asserts an alternative: **time does not cause change**, nor is it a cosmic dimension. Instead, “time” is a convenient index we extract from **comparing change** across systems (Barbour 1999; Rovelli 2018). For example, one second is defined by counting $9{,}192{,}631{,}770$ oscillations of a cesium atom (BIPM 2019). Thus, we do not measure an absolute flow; we measure **how many cycles** one process completes relative to another. Interpreting time in this manner—**purely operational**—undermines the assumption that there is a universal clock reading the same “$t$” everywhere. Instead, each observer or system has its own local measure of change, $\chi$. Properly speaking, **time** emerges as a record of local rates of change, not an external dimension that propels events forward. - **Empirical case**: “Time dilation” in relativity. Observations of moving clocks running slower do not require “time itself” to slow; it is more accurate to say **the clock’s internal processes** (e.g., atomic transitions) run at a different rate relative to a reference observer’s processes (Hafele & Keating 1972). - **Cosmological case**: The scale factor $a(t)$ in standard FRW models presumes a single $t$ for the entire universe. A **Changist** re-interpretation sets $a(\chi)$, acknowledging that different regions or observers can accumulate change at different rates. This approach can resolve the so-called Hubble tension by allowing **no global synchronization** across cosmic distances (Wiltshire 2007; Buchert 2008). --- ## 1.4 The High Cost of Universal Time Retaining **universal time** in cosmology imposes multiple conceptual costs: 1. **Dark Energy**: The phenomenon of accelerated expansion often arises from forcing disparate local observations to fit one $t$-based timeline. If cosmic evolution were truly local, the mismatch might vanish without positing dark energy (Buchert 2008). 2. **Block Universe and Ontological Freeze**: A four-dimensional block treats the future as fixed and “already there,” undermining **becoming** and **agency**. It reduces apparent motion to a static tapestry where **change** is an illusion. Changism, by contrast, reaffirms genuine emergence in a locally defined “now.” 3. **Relativistic Contradictions**: Relativity states no global simultaneity or absolute clock. Yet standard cosmology reintroduces both. This tension underlies puzzles like the Hubble tension, where local measurements (SH0ES collaboration) and global inferences (Planck) contradict each other’s “$H_0$” values, precisely because they assume a single $t$. 4. **Quantum Contextuality**: In relational quantum mechanics (Rovelli 1996), states exist only in interactions, with no universal time-based evolution. Forcing a “universal Schrödinger equation in $t$” can obscure relational aspects of measurement. All these difficulties can be traced to the **metaphysical inflation** of time from “measure of change” to “physical dimension.” --- ## 1.5 A Timeless Ontology: The Path Ahead Changism thus proposes a bold yet unifying stance: > **Time is not fundamental**; it is a derived parameter reflecting **local rates of change** ($\chi$), not a universal cosmic clock. ### Key Pillars - **Operational Definition**: Following Galileo, Einstein, and the SI standard, define time units by counting periodic processes. This clarifies that “time” is an index for **comparing** changes, not a substance in which they occur. - **Presentism Without Paradox**: Denying a universal time does **not** eliminate the present—rather, each observer’s present is the system’s **current configuration**. Events do not exist “in the future” or “in the past”; they are physically real only when (and where) they happen. This local perspective aligns with **relativity’s** emphasis on no global simultaneity, while preserving a coherent notion of “this is happening now” for each observer. - **Local Scalar $\chi$**: Replacing the global coordinate $t$ with $\chi$ in equations ensures **consistency with local relativity**. Instead of “the universe evolves in $t$,” each region has a $\chi$-based measure. Differences in $\chi$-rates across space can mimic cosmic acceleration or other anomalies—no “dark energy” needed if the mismatch is simply **mis-synchronization** of local change. - **Compatibility with Geometric Electromagnetism (GEM)**: In Weyl-based approaches (e.g., $\nabla_\lambda g_{\mu\nu} \neq 0$), the metric evolves, embodying **change** itself. Forces become expressions of geometry’s self-variation, meaning “time” is superfluous. We track how geometry changes **with respect to** local $\chi$. ### Looking Ahead Subsequent chapters show how rewriting Friedmann equations in terms of $\chi$—and recognizing time as an emergent measure—**resolves** conceptual puzzles like the Hubble tension and the supposed “dark energy.” By adopting a **timeless ontology** (where only change is fundamental), we free ourselves from a universal $t$ that contradictory observations have never firmly justified. --- ### References (Excerpt) - Barbour, J. (1999). *The End of Time.* Oxford University Press. - Bergson, H. (1910). *Time and Free Will.* - BIPM. (2019). *The International System of Units (SI), 9th edn.* - Buchert, T. (2008). “Dark Energy from Structure: A Status Report.” *Gen Rel Grav* 40: 467–527. - Einstein, A. (1916). “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity.” *Ann. Phys.* - Hafele, J. & Keating, R. (1972). “Around-the-World Atomic Clocks.” *Science* 177: 168–170. - Husserl, E. (1905). *The Phenomenology of Internal Time-Consciousness.* - Minkowski, H. (1908). “Space and Time.” In *The Principle of Relativity.* - Rovelli, C. (1996). “Relational Quantum Mechanics.” *Int J Theor Phys* 35: 1637–1678. - Rovelli, C. (2018). *The Order of Time.* Riverhead Books. - Wiltshire, D. L. (2007). “Cosmic clocks, cosmic variance and cosmological relativity.” *Phys Rev D* 76: 084023. - Wittgenstein, L. (1953). *Philosophical Investigations.* --- #### End of Chapter 1 > **Summary**: Time is better understood as an **operational construct** derived from comparing localized change rates ($\chi$). Maintaining a universal cosmic clock $t$ artificially introduces tensions in cosmology and obscures the true relational nature of physical phenomena. By **demoting** time from its final metaphysical pedestal, we restore internal consistency to relativity, open new paths to reconciling cosmic data (Hubble tension, dark energy puzzles), and affirm a universe defined by **ongoing change** rather than by an absolute temporal dimension.